There's no way we will agree on this point, but I would simply observe that the physical theories that you have recourse to have boundary conditions defined by the physical dimension that we find ourselves in. If other dimensions do exist -- and I think the door is still open -- they would likely be subject to totally different physical laws. Therefore we still need to keep all possibilities in mind -- if you prefer to limit your options that is your choice, of course.

Click to expand...

There is no such a thing as a "totally new laws of Physics". Physics continues in a succession of steps, like Russian dolls. General Relativity contains Newton's gravity laws. And both these theories exclude extra dimensions. So the next new classical theory of gravity will have to exclude extra dimension.

There is no such a thing as a "totally new laws of Physics". Physics continues in a succession of steps, like Russian dolls. General Relativity contains Newton's gravity laws. And both these theories exclude extra dimensions. So the next new classical theory of gravity will have to exclude extra dimension.

Click to expand...

It all depends how you look at it, of course. If you think there is only one reality and that we are discovering its laws, then you may be right. I am only suggesting that if there are other realities, they might function under quite different physical laws.

It all depends how you look at it, of course. If you think there is only one reality and that we are discovering its laws, then you may be right. I am only suggesting that if there are other realities, they might function under quite different physical laws.

Click to expand...

As @Thomas R. Morrison explained much better than I can, that that is non-empirical opinion. Problem is when non-empirical and empirical opinions are mixed in the same discussion. Quality of that discussion immediately drops to zero because science-fiction and scientific-reality are treated as equal, but that is not obvious to all particiants.

Empirical sciences, particularly deterministic ones, should lead UFO discussions, just to publicaly humiliate and raut UFO sceptics. Once that's done probabilistic empirical sciences, like psychology or sociology or folklore studies, should follow in with much more credibility, because they could always turn and say "physical evidence of UFOs had been confirmed".

As @Thomas R. Morrison explained much better than I can, that that is non-empirical opinion. Problem is when non-empirical and empirical opinions are mixed in the same discussion. Quality of that discussion immediately drops to zero because science-fiction and scientific-reality are treated as equal, but that is not obvious to all particiants.

Empirical sciences, particularly deterministic ones, should lead UFO discussions, just to publicaly humiliate and raut UFO sceptics. Once that's done probabilistic empirical sciences, like psychology or sociology or folklore studies, should follow in with much more credibility, because they could always turn and say "physical evidence of UFOs had been confirmed".

Click to expand...

If you think the aim of discussions about UFOs is to humiliate UFO sceptics, then I have to disagree. I think we should be searching for the answers to the UFO problem, not just responding to the short sighted comments of the self-proclaimed sceptics. Why let them dictate our actions?

If you think the aim of discussions about UFOs is to humiliate UFO sceptics, then I have to disagree. I think we should be searching for the answers to the UFO problem, not just responding to the short sighted comments of the self-proclaimed sceptics. Why let them dictate our actions?

Click to expand...

I agree with you. It was just a sidenote, that is now creating a distraction from the main point of that post.

It all depends how you look at it, of course. If you think there is only one reality and that we are discovering its laws, then you may be right. I am only suggesting that if there are other realities, they might function under quite different physical laws.

Click to expand...

Agreed, in general. Anyone that thinks they have it all figured out probably doesn't.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

So let me get this straight: you’re claiming that 45 years ago the people now with TTSA were also involved in the production of the 1974 film UFOs: Past, Present, and Future – specifically, that they promised to provide the production team of that film genuine footage of the alleged meeting between aliens and military personnel at Holloman Air Force Base.

Got any links to support this absurd allegation? And who are you talking about when you say “the stanford guys?” - are you talking about Ray Stanford (who has zero connections with TTSA) or are you talking about Hal Putfoff – who received his PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1967?

"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

The concept is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who in a 2003 Slate article formulated it thus: 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'"

"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

The concept is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who in a 2003 Slate article formulated it thus: 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'"

there are people from the US government in TTSA, what else are you expecting?

Click to expand...

I'm not even going to offer a rebuttal to that statement because if you can't see how dumb and empty that argument is, nothing I can say to you will help. The idea that "everyone who has ever done government work is 'in on the conspiracy to deceive the public about the topic of UFOs' is possibly the most vapid and hysterically paranoid argument that I've heard from anyone ever. Lots of people in the government have bucked the system to speak out and offer testimony regarding the reality of UFOs : Ruppelt, Keyhoe, Hynek, Hill, and on and on - you know this. And the simple fact that the government has bent over backwards to offer no support for, or confirmation of, anything these people have been saying...should be enough to convince anyone that these folks are going against 70 years of government denial regarding this subject. But somehow even the most rudimentary application of analytical reasoning escapes you.